Conservationists' perspectives on poverty: An empirical study
Conservationists' perspectives on poverty: An empirical study
复制标题
环保主义者对贫困的看法：一项实证研究
DOI：
10.1002/pan3.10098
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Fisher J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fisher J
生物多样性保护干预措施长期面临人类贫困的挑战。国际自然保护的伦理基础，包括自然保护与贫困的关系，目前正受到关于自然保护未来的激烈辩论的质疑。然而，尽管存在一些评论，但迄今为止缺乏对保护实践者对贫困的观点及其伦理理由的实证分析。我们使用Q方法，辅以更详细的定性分析来检验保护运动中关于贫困和保护的经验观点，并将这些经验话语与文献中的立场进行比较。我们抽样了总部设在西方的组织、玻利维亚、中国、尼泊尔和乌干达的保护工作者，从而给出了这些观点在拉丁美洲、亚洲和非洲的迹象。虽然有一些共识的要素，例如穷人不应该承担保护全球公共利益的成本的原则，但这三种话语在许多方面存在分歧。人类中心主义和生态中心主义区分了这两种观点，但除此之外，还有两种截然不同的贫困框架，保护实践者不同地坚持。第一种优先考虑福利、需求和充足主义，与中国、尼泊尔和乌干达的案例研究联系更紧密。第二种贫困框架更多地侧重于“不伤害”原则和保障措施的必要性，并遵循国际化的人权导向话语。关于贫穷是被描述为退化的驱动因素，还是更多地强调过度消费和富裕使保护威胁永久化，两种说法之间也存在重要的区别。这一维度特别说明了自布伦特兰报告发表以来30多年来思维的转变，反映了新的全球现实。这一分析有助于更新、分析和澄清在保护和更广泛的环境运动中对贫困的不同观点，阐明观点之间的共识方面，并揭示仍然存在重大分歧的地方。在本文的支持信息中可以找到一个免费的简单语言摘要。
Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation's relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far.We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organizations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa.While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three elicited discourses diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to.The first prioritizes welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalized human rights‐oriented discourse.There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterized as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities.This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain.A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2018-10
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
M. Barrett;A. Belward;S. Bladen;T. Breeze;N. Burgess;S. Butchart;H. Clewclow;S. Cornell;A. Cottam;S. Croft;G. D. Carlo;L. Felice;A. Palma;S. Deinet;R. Downie;C. Drijver;B. Fischler;R. Freeman;O. Gaffney;A. Galli;P. Gamblin;M. Garratt;N. Gorelick;Jonathan M. H. Green;M. Grooten;L. Hanscom;S. Hill;C. Hilton‐Taylor;A. Jones;T. Juniper;H. Khan;D. Kroodsma;D. Leclère;G. Llewellyn;G. Mace;L. McRae;K. Mo;J. Opperman;A. Orgiazzi;S. Orr;P. Pacheco;D. Palomares;D. Pauly;Jean-François Pekel;L. Pendleton;A. Purvis;N. Radcliffe;T. Roxburgh;B. Scholes;D. Senapathi;D. Tanzer;M. Thieme;D. Tickner;P. Tittonell;P. Trathan;P. Visconti;M. Wackernagel;C. West;N. Zwaal
通讯作者：
M. Barrett;A. Belward;S. Bladen;T. Breeze;N. Burgess;S. Butchart;H. Clewclow;S. Cornell;A. Cottam;S. Croft;G. D. Carlo;L. Felice;A. Palma;S. Deinet;R. Downie;C. Drijver;B. Fischler;R. Freeman;O. Gaffney;A. Galli;P. Gamblin;M. Garratt;N. Gorelick;Jonathan M. H. Green;M. Grooten;L. Hanscom;S. Hill;C. Hilton‐Taylor;A. Jones;T. Juniper;H. Khan;D. Kroodsma;D. Leclère;G. Llewellyn;G. Mace;L. McRae;K. Mo;J. Opperman;A. Orgiazzi;S. Orr;P. Pacheco;D. Palomares;D. Pauly;Jean-François Pekel;L. Pendleton;A. Purvis;N. Radcliffe;T. Roxburgh;B. Scholes;D. Senapathi;D. Tanzer;M. Thieme;D. Tickner;P. Tittonell;P. Trathan;P. Visconti;M. Wackernagel;C. West;N. Zwaal
DOI：
10.5558/tfc64098-2
发表时间：
1987
期刊：
Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
影响因子：
--
作者：
通讯作者：
--
自然资源保护主义者对市场有何看法
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
C. Sandbrook;J. Fisher;B. Vira
通讯作者：
B. Vira
公正保护：生物多样性、福祉和可持续性
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Adrian Martin
通讯作者：
Adrian Martin
影响因子：
2.7
作者：
M. Walpole;L. Wilder
通讯作者：
L. Wilder